dmaker Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 "No, I believe you're missing my main point. Can't we discuss a report of a Bigfoot in a topic called Urban Bigfoot, Seriously? without having to defend whether it's real or not to your satisfaction?" See My initial comment consisted of pointing out two things: one, the report was 5 days before Halloween, so a costume really should be considered. And two, that it was lodged 14 yrs after the event. If candid and civil observations are no longer welcome, then please let me know and I'll gladly forfeit my membership now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 We have mountains of anecdotal accounts, foot tracks, vocalizations, photos, etc, we desperately need something tangible if we are going to catch Science's eye. THANK YOU! I've been trying for 50+ pages to say this. If we want this to be taken seriously, we need to move past the stories and start to gather real physical evidence. Now if y'all are ok with sharing stories then by all means go ahead - but then call them what they are - stories. So far, by my count, I am the only person who has thrown out any ideas for LCB to gather physical evidence. Anyone else have ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 "No, I believe you're missing my main point. Can't we discuss a report of a Bigfoot in a topic called Urban Bigfoot, Seriously? without having to defend whether it's real or not to your satisfaction?" See My initial comment consisted of pointing out two things: one, the report was 5 days before Halloween, so a costume really should be considered. And two, that it was lodged 14 yrs after the event. If candid and civil observations are no longer welcome, then please let me know and I'll gladly forfeit my membership now. No need for that, but you need to understand that this is a Bigfoot forum. Skeptics are welcome, and I actually encourage their participation. However, when it comes to a point where it becomes necessary to defend something as elementary as a simple report and the time frame it was filed within, that's just a bit much. After all, the point was to discuss the report. You asked your questions, I asked mine. It then took off into a full page of this doesn't equate to that, as well as the report isn't true evidence. If it isn't truly evidence, why does it matter when the report was filed or what holiday it occurred before? I believe you'll have to admit that if the report were filed 5 minutes after the observation on March 1st, you'd still find it to be untruthful, wouldn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 The time frame it was filed in is not a simple thing in my opinion. Human recall is highly fallible at the best of times. 14 yrs after an event should cast some serious doubts as to the accuracy of the events being recalled. And if the point was to discuss the report, then I did that. I read it and offered my opinion. I thought that fell within the definition of discussion? The evidence tangent was a result of your comparison of the report to a scientific theory. If you think details like when a report was filed are irrelevant then I would strongly suggest that you are not being completely objective. I mean we are talking about a report that took place within the same week as Halloween. How can that be irrelevant?? And 14 yrs after the fact? Saying this is not relevant is dismissing important details so that one can focus on the interesting Bigfooty bits only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 If I saw a large, hairy creature that had shoulders the same height as a 6-7 foot tall fence walking down the street in my town, I believe I could recall such things as those well after 14 years had passed. Maybe that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 I am sure that you could. And the best that science could do with your recollection is thank you for your story. There is nothing testable or falsifiable or repeatable in your scenario. So as evidence, yours or anyone's, recollection really does not amount to anything. Sure, it's interesting to talk about and hear and imagine, but it does not really go beyond campfire story as far as anything that anyone can actually use to support the claim for Bigfoot. We have enough stories. More will not make any difference at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Your ability to dismiss the observation skills of anyone that has witnessed one of these creatures is simply amazing to me. To the people that have actually seen one, I'm sure that your opinion concerning the matter is meaningless. Good, respectful, decent, and upstanding folks are seeing something that they don't recognize in the everyday world. Dismiss it if you will, but that doesn't change what they've witnessed. Is it irrefutable proof? No, but they saw something. You don't necessarily have to be a scientist to recognize what something is, or what something isn't. It's just too easy for skeptics to sit back and demand that each report be substantiated with a corpse when they themselves would also be flabbergasted at the site of such a creature, and it's doubtful that they'd run off in pursuit of the creature to prove its existence, either. Bear in mind I'm not trying to defend any weird stuff here, just the sightings of the creature by reasonable people. People that don't happen to carry a camera with them for the majority of the time, or don't happen to have one readily available. People that are involved in other matters and are caught off guard upon witnessing the creature. I can criticize anyone from the safety of scientific consensus. “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.†― Carl Sagan, Cosmos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 (edited) But you are agreeing that they saw something that cannot be easily explained. Once you open that door, then of course Bigfoot becomes a viable possibility. Of course they saw "something", but that something can probably be easily explained as something other than a Bigfoot. Perhaps a root ball? That is where we differ vastly. You just assume that they saw something and that that something cannot be easily explained. I do not, at all, grant that premise. For those that are simply not liars, the other "genuine" encounters can be chalked up to ...well..take your pic from a long list of why people see things that are not really there. Edited October 20, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 No it can't be explained away. What I saw was about forty feet away. I went back to measure the distance. It was broad daylight. It was slender and running on two feet ! It ran as fast as any other animal and it ran silently grabbing a slender tree with one of it's hands ! You can say what you want. I can tell you, you are wrong ! I know what I saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Not wrong, just possessed of an opinion, a belief system, that self-justifies his own rationalizations. No different than an entrenched political or religious belief system, and no point in discussing it with him further, based on the obviously subjective position that witness reports are universally fallible. What bugs us is the casual arrogance toward witnesses that is integral to the opinion. As we stir this pot once again, we have to consider that the attention bestowed fuels the process, and thus perpetuates it. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, no more valid than his own, it's better to simply say, "yeah, yeah, there you go again, we heard your opinion the hundredth time, so let's return to the substantive discussion", rather than make this thread, or any other, once again about his opinion rather than about the original post. His consensus is not required to advance discussion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Llawgoch Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Your ability to dismiss the observation skills of anyone that has witnessed one of these creatures is simply amazing to me. To the people that have actually seen one, I'm sure that your opinion concerning the matter is meaningless. Good, respectful, decent, and upstanding folks are seeing something that they don't recognize in the everyday world. Dismiss it if you will, but that doesn't change what they've witnessed. Is it irrefutable proof? No, but they saw something. You don't necessarily have to be a scientist to recognize what something is, or what something isn't. It's just too easy for skeptics to sit back and demand that each report be substantiated with a corpse when they themselves would also be flabbergasted at the site of such a creature, and it's doubtful that they'd run off in pursuit of the creature to prove its existence, either. Bear in mind I'm not trying to defend any weird stuff here, just the sightings of the creature by reasonable people. People that don't happen to carry a camera with them for the majority of the time, or don't happen to have one readily available. People that are involved in other matters and are caught off guard upon witnessing the creature. I can criticize anyone from the safety of scientific consensus. “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.†― Carl Sagan, Cosmos Do you think the many people reporting the 'weird stuff' are reasonable people? "Good respectful, decent and upstanding folk"? if not, what do you think they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Having spent a little time in Chicago and its suburbs, was just there last weekend. I would find it highly unlikley biggie is able to roam around that traffic nightmare that is surrounding Chicago. While the surrounding counties have done a fantastic job of establishing and maintaining parks and green space. Not sure what would compel such a creature to attempt to negotiate such a dangerous and exposing landscape. Some info on the fun that is a commute in that area...if they are there sightings would be reported all the time or one would have been hit by now http://www.berwyned.com/papers/co2cochgo.pdf Urban bigfoot nah....just like D says urban people misinterpreting what their looking at much more likely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 Do you think the many people reporting the 'weird stuff' are reasonable people? "Good respectful, decent and upstanding folk"? if not, what do you think they are? I'm having a hard enough time defending a normal, run of the mill sighting with this individual. Why don't we get a "normal" sighting out of the way before we inject the extremely extraordinary into the mix? But you are agreeing that they saw something that cannot be easily explained. Once you open that door, then of course Bigfoot becomes a viable possibility. Of course they saw "something", but that something can probably be easily explained as something other than a Bigfoot. Perhaps a root ball? That is where we differ vastly. You just assume that they saw something and that that something cannot be easily explained. I do not, at all, grant that premise. For those that are simply not liars, the other "genuine" encounters can be chalked up to ...well..take your pic from a long list of why people see things that are not really there. Yep, that explains it. Those root balls have been documented to cross the road in front of vehicles with witnesses in them, walk down the street, or rummage through dumpsters. No, I don't just assume that they saw something and that that something cannot be easily explained. If it could be easily explained we wouldn't be discussing the topic on a Bigfoot forum, now would we? What I don't do is claim that the folks didn't see what they claim they saw when I myself didn't view what they saw, nor do I assume that these folks are automatically mistaken, dishonest, wackos, drunkards, or dunces to explain their incident. If it's not really there, how did they actually view it? You may have your opinions on the matter, but I believe better of the majority of witnesses that observe the creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 (edited) Hello All, If a large hairy-from-head-to-toe creature walked in front of you or your car on TWO LEGS and it's eyes reflected red? On the subject of recall one may not remember the hair color accurately, or whether the creature was 6 1/2 feet tall or 8, or whether the teeth had canines or were even. But I truly doubt that they would say that the eyes reflected green instead red! Somethings WILL stand out and never be forgotten. In the general sense the creature was large, hair covered, WALKED ON TWO LEGS and it's RED eyes were well above the surface of the road or wherever else. I don't think one needs totally perfect recall in order to paint the picture of something as unusual as a Sasquatch. Edited October 20, 2013 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 20, 2013 Share Posted October 20, 2013 (edited) "No, I don't just assume that they saw something and that that something cannot be easily explained. If it could be easily explained we wouldn't be discussing the topic on a Bigfoot forum, now would we?" -See Yes, we do it all the time. "... based on the obviously subjective position that witness reports are universally fallible."- JDL Actually, it's an objective position, not a subjective one. Eye witness reports are universally fallible and that is an objective fact, not a subjective observation. "If it's not really there, how did they actually view it? You may have your opinions on the matter, but I believe better of the majority of witnesses that observe the creature." -See Take your pic from a long list of reasons why people claim to see things that are not really there. It's great that you believe better of people that you have never met and who are making claims that they have not a single shred of evidence to support. Without that sort of blind faith devotion, myths like Bigfoot would have far less traction than they do. Edited October 20, 2013 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts